Kerala High Court
Chandrakumar T vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 25 January, 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/29TH PHALGUNA, 1935
WP(C).No. 14339 of 2013 (N)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
1. CHANDRAKUMAR T.
CONDUCTOR-GRADE II,
APPEAL SECTION CHIEF OFFICE, KSRTC
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. ANISH,
ASSISTANT DEPOT ENGINEER,
CHALAKKUDY DEPOT, KSRTC
CHALAKKUDY.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.P.M.NASEEMA
SRI.K.A.ANI JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI M.A.ABDUL SHUKOOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 20-03-2014 ALONG WITH WPC NOS.14243/2013, 14728/2013,
14888/2013 & 248 OF 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 14339 of 2013 (N)
---------------------------
A P P E N D I X
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HIGH POWER
COMMITTEE, SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.174/03 TRANS, DTD.5.5.2003.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE KSRTC (RECRUITMENT OF ASSISTANT
TRANSPORT OFFICERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS/DEPOT ENGINEERS)
REGULATIONS 2003.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO.(MS)9/2004/TRANS, DTD.12.3.2004.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.1.2006 IN WP(C)
NO.727/2006.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 7.5.2008 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 11.11.2008 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 11.11.2008 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.118/2009.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE KSRTC (QUALIFICATION AND METHOD OF
APPOINTMENT OF HIGHER DIVISION OFFICERS) REGULATIONS, 2012.
EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY SRI.K.B.GANESH
KUMAR, PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD.29.10.2004.
EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY SRI.K.B.GANESH KUMAR
PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD.5.8.2001.
EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE KSRTC NEWS LETTER, DTD.AUGUST, 2011.
EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY
DTD.11.5.2009.
EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI
DAILY DTD.10.3.2013.
EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)17/2013/TRAN DATED 16.3.2013.
EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.5.2011 ISSUED UNDER THE
RTI ACT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------
NIL.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N,
14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M,
14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th March, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The issue in these Writ Petitions relates to the selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Transport Officers (hereinafter referred to as `A.T.Os' for short). Since the issue raised is common, these Writ Petitions are considered together. The petitioners in W.P(c) No.14339 of 2013 are persons holding the degree of M.B.A. In addition, the first petitioner holds a degree of LL.B and B.Sc in Mathematics and the second petitioner holds a B.Tech. Degree. The petitioners in W.P(c) Nos.14728 and 14888 of 2013 are holders of M.B.A degree. The petitioners in W.P(c) No.14243 of 2013 are working as a Conductor and Junior Assistant respectively. They have substantial periods of service to their credits. The petitioners in W.P(c) No.248 of 2014, husband and wife, are persons who are working as W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 2 Superintendents having been initially recruited as Lower Division Clerks. They have passed all departmental tests including the Manual of Office Procedure Test as well as Account Test (Lower). The petitioners in all these cases claim that they are entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant Transport Officers. For the sake of convenience, W.P(c) No.14339 of 2013 is treated as the leading case and the parties and the documents are referred to, in the manner in which they are described in the said Writ Petition.
2. The gist of the contentions of the petitioners is that, as per Ext.P1, a High Power Committee, that had gone into the question of lack of efficiency in the organization and functioning of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `the K.S.R.T.C' for short), had submitted Ext.P1 recommendations. In Ext.P1, Recommendation No.22 has found that, it was necessary to improve the middle level management of the organization. W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 3 For the purpose, it has been recommended that direct recruitment be made to the posts of A.T.O as well as Administrative Officers and Depot Engineers. In the case of A.T.Os, it has been recommended that an M.B.A should be stipulated as a requisite qualification. The said recommendation was accepted by the Government and by Ext.P2 Government Order dated 5.5.03, the 1st respondent was directed to implement the said recommendations in a time bound manner. Accordingly, Ext.P3 Regulations for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (Recruitment of Assistant Transport Officers/Administrative Officers/Depot Engineers) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the `2003 Regulations' for short) was brought into force. Ext.P3 stipulates 3 methods of recruitment for appointment to the posts of A.T.Os. 25% of A.T.Os are to be selected through Direct Recruitment. Graduation in any discipline as well as an M.B.A are stipulated as the qualifications. 15% are to be appointed through Internal W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 4 Recruitment from the K.S.R.T.C employees. It is stipulated that, the candidates should have completed 5 years service in the K.S.R.T.C and should possess the educational qualification of graduation in any discipline and an M.B.A degree. An age limit of 40 years as on the 1st July of the year in which the selection is proposed, is also stipulated. The balance remaining 60% is to be filled up by promotion from the feeder post of Superintendents. In these cases, we are concerned with only the selection through Internal Recruitment. As per Ext.P4, approval was granted by the Government to Ext.P3.
3. According to the petitioner, since the 1st respondent was not implementing the Regulations, but was proceeding to fill up the available vacancies in the post of A.T.Os through Direct Recruitment, one of the employees had approached this Court by filing W.P(c) No.727 of 2006. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing the same to be implemented. Thereafter, Ext.P6 W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 5 Notification was issued inviting applications to the posts of A.T.Os. As per Exts.P7 and P8, the interview of the petitioners was postponed. Meanwhile, 3 persons had already been appointed, according to the petitioners.
4. Since the interview was not conducted as scheduled, the petitioners approached this Court seeking appropriate reliefs. The matter was heard and by Ext.P9 judgment it was ordered that the 1st respondent should consult the Public Service Commission (`P.S.C' for short). However, it was ordered as follows:
"15. Taking all the aforesaid factors into consideration, it is ordered that the Corporation will immediately take up necessary follow up action to commence and complete the consultation process with the PSC. The State Government will also do the needful and the PSC will ensure that such proceedings are not held up having regard to the fact that the W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 6 regulations were conceived some time in 2003. As of now, those who have been given the benefit of the 2003 Regulations would continue to enjoy the same provisionally in terms of the orders of appointment issued by the Managing Director in their cases and any selection process could also be completed as regards the 15% internal recruitment candidates and even appointment orders could be issued however that, such appointment orders and any incumbent joining duty in any such posts, would be provisional and subject to review by the Managing Director on the basis of the final outcome of the consultation process. There writ petitions are ordered accordingly."
The resultant position therefore, permitted the 1st respondent to complete the recruitment process that was in progress as evident from Exts.P7 and P8 and also to make W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 7 appointments of the selected candidates. Of course, such appointments have been permitted to be made only provisionally and subject to review in accordance with the direction extracted above. However, the petitioners were not appointed.
5. Instead, fresh regulations were framed after consultation with the P.S.C. Ext.P10 is a copy of the regulations so brought into force. The said regulations are called the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (Qualification and Method of Appointment of Higher Division Officers) Regulations, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the `2012 Regulations' for short). As per Ext.P10, recruitment to the 25% posts of A.T.Os are to be made by following 3 different modes. The first is by Direct Recruitment from persons having B.Tech. degree in either Mechanical or Automobile Engineering or an M.B.A degree in Marketing or Human Resources Development. Recruitment to 15% of the vacancies are to be made by W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 8 Internal Recruitment from among other the lower categories in the operating branch. The qualification prescribed for such recruitment is Graduation in any discipline with 10 years of continuous service in the K.S.R.T.C. The remaining 60% vacancies are to be filled up on selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee based on seniority and merit, from among the feeder category of Transport Inspectors.
6. The petitioners attack the qualifications prescribed by the 2012 Regulations. According to Sri G.Krishna Kumar, who appears for the petitioners, the recommendations of the High Power Committee were intended to bring in efficiency at the middle level management of the K.S.R.T.C for the purpose of improving its efficiency in the manner of functioning. For the purpose, Ext.P1 recommendations were submitted to the Government. The recommendations were also accepted by the Government and by Ext.P2 it was directed to be W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 9 implemented. The said Government Order is still in force, not having been revoked or cancelled. The said direction has been issued under Section 35 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as `the R.T.C Act' for short). Such directions are binding on the 1st respondent, and the K.S.R.T.C has no power or authority to frame regulations in contravention of such a direction. Ext.P10 in so far as it has watered down the qualification for Internal Recruitment from insisting on a degree of M.B.A to a mere graduation in any discipline has violated the directions contained in Ext.P2. Ext.P10 does not even refer to Ext.P2. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, Ext.P10 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, as per Ext.P9 this Court has directed that the selection process set in motion by Ext.P6 notification could go on and that appointments could also be made, but only on provisional basis. Therefore, the 1st respondent W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 10 ought to have proceeded with the selection process, completed the same and appointed the petitioners provisionally. It is pointed out that, the 3 persons who had been initially appointed pursuant to Ext.P6 Notification had subsequently been regularised in service after conducting a review as ordered by this Court in Ext.P9. Had the petitioners been so appointed, they would also have been regularised. Therefore by not proceeding with the said selection, the petitioners have been discriminated. The learned counsel for the petitioners also attack the prescription of the age limit of 45 years for the Internal Recruitment that is stipulated, contending that prescription of an age limit is unnecessary for the purpose of discharging the duties of an A.T.O. The promotees are promoted to the said post without any restriction on age. It is also contended that, persons holding M.B.A Degree form a class by themselves and to differentiate them on the basis of their age for the purpose of promotion to a higher post is W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 11 violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Prescription of such an age limit, according to the learned counsel, is unknown to service jurisprudence in the case of Internal Recruitment. For the above reasons, it is contended that Ext.P10 is liable to be set aside.
7. Advocate Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha appears for the respondents. According to the learned counsel, the 2003 Regulations suffered from a serious infirmity for the reason that, the P.S.C had not been consulted before the said regulations were brought into force. The Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation) Act, 1970, mandates that the P.S.C be consulted on all matters relating to recruitment of officers and servants. The Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation by Kerala State Road Transport Corporation) Rules, 1969, prescribes the procedure for such consultation. The said Act and Rules are produced as Exts.R1(b) and R1(a) respectively in W.P(c) W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 12 No.14888 of 2013. Though the wording used in Section 3 of Ext.R1(b) is that the Corporation `may consult', it is contended that such consultation is considered to be mandatory. As per Ext.R1(c) judgment of this Court in W.P(c) No.6198 of 2004, it has been ordered that appointment to the Corporation can be made only in consultation with the P.S.C. Accordingly, proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent for making appointments to the posts of A.T.Os, Administrative Officers and Depot Engineers were set aside. The said judgment is dated 26.11.2008. Consequently, the 1st respondent was faced with a situation where it did not consider it expedient to proceed with the selection that was commenced as per Ext.P6 notification. Though it is true that the recommendations of the High Power Committee had been accepted by the Government and ordered to be implemented, the 2003 Regulations that were framed pursuant to the said direction could not be proceeded with W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 13 for want of consultation with the P.S.C. The said circumstance necessitated the framing of the 2012 Regulations. The said regulations have been approved by the Government and brought into force by publication in the Government Gazette. Therefore, the 2012 regulations do not suffer from any infirmity as alleged by the petitioners.
8. It is further contended that, no prejudice whatsoever is likely to result from an insistence of graduation in any discipline as the basic qualification for Internal Recruitment to the posts of A.T.Os. This is for the reason that the petitioners being persons with superior qualifications would be able to perform better in the interview and get selected, in preference the persons who only have graduation as qualification. Section 45(1) of the R.T.C Act confers power to frame regulations. The regulations so framed are legislative in nature. The regulations are framed with the previous sanction of the State Government. In fact, such sanction has also been W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 14 obtained. Therefore, it is contended that the Government having approved the said regulations, there is no question of any conflict with the direction issued under Section 34 of the R.T.C Act arising in the present case. For the above reasons, it is contended that the various objections raised against the 2012 Regulations are unsustainable.
9. Heard Advocates Sri G.Krishna Kumar, Sri V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar, Sri Dinny Thomas and Sri Jaishankar V.Nair, who appear for the petitioners as well as Sri Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, who appears for the respondents. I have considered the contentions raised before me, anxiously.
10. The dispute in these cases relates to the power of the K.S.R.T.C to stipulate qualifications for selection by Internal Recruitment to the posts of A.T.Os. It is well settled that, it is the prerogative of an employer to stipulate the qualifications that are necessary to be prescribed for appointment to a post. The qualifications are stipulated W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 15 taking into account the duties that are required to be discharged by the person occupying the post, the level of efficiency expected and the requirement of the service. All the above aspects being technical in nature, are best left to be decided by the persons who have necessary experience in such matters. Therefore, in the matter of prescribing qualifications, the scope of judicial review is very limited. In the present case, the attack is against not prescribing the degree of M.B.A as an essential qualification for Internal Recruitment. The prescription of the age limit of 45 years is also under attack.
11. It is no doubt true that, the High Power Committee has by Ext.P1 recommended the necessity of bringing in efficiency at the middle level management of the K.S.R.T.C. For the purpose, it has been recommended that the degree of M.B.A should be stipulated as a qualification for the posts of A.T.Os, Administrative Officers as well as the Depot Engineers. According to the learned counsel for W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 16 the petitioners, the degree of M.B.A has been removed only to appease the trade unions, with whom discussions were held by the authorities. It is also contended that the Government having accepted the recommendations contained in Ext.P1 and issued Ext.P2 which continues to be in force, the same has acquired a binding character under Section 34 of the R.T.C Act. Consequently, it is not open to the 1st respondent to frame regulations in violation of the said direction. However, the fact remains that pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2, the 2003 Regulations had been framed. However, the selection initiated pursuant to the same could not be proceeded with in view of Ext.P9 judgment of this Court. In the light of the directions contained in Ext.P9 judgment therefore, the P.S.C was consulted and fresh regulations, Ext.P10 has been framed. A perusal of Ext.P10 shows that the Government has by G.O(Ms) No:63/2012/Tran dated 16.10.2012, approved the said qualifications. The operative portion of the said W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 17 Government Order reads as follows:
"Government are pleased to approve the KSRTC [Qualification and method of appointment of Higher Division Officers] Regulations, 2012 appended herewith, framed by KSRTC in exercise of the powers conferred on KSRTC as per Act 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 [Central Act LXIV of 1950], in supersession of any other previous recruitment regulations or set of rules in force for selection and appointment of Assistant Transport Officers/Administrative Officers/Depot Engineers in KSRTC."
(emphasis supplied)
12. Though the Government had directed implementation of Ext.P1 recommendations as per Ext.P2 Government Order, by the Government Order dated W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 18 16.10.12 referred to above that forms part of Ext.P10, the Government have obviously superseded Ext.P2. The Government is the authority to issue directions under Section 34. The very same authority has accepted and approved the regulations framed by the K.S.R.T.C. Therefore, the contention that the 1st respondent should be held to be bound by the directions in Ext.P2 cannot be accepted. Any such interpretation would only lead to a ridiculous situation. Ext.P2 that has been superceded, would have to be held to be still in force, which is not warranted. Therefore, the contention that in view of Ext.P2 Government Order the stipulations regarding qualification for Internal Recruitment should be set aside, cannot be accepted.
13. The next question is whether the 1st respondent's act in watering down the recommendation of the High Power Committee contained in Ext.P1 is sustainable. What is worth noticing is that, Ext.P1 is only recommendatory in W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 19 nature. The same has been considered by the Government, the P.S.C has been consulted and Ext.P10 Regulations have been framed by the 1st respondent. Unless the qualification prescribed can be described as arbitrary, it cannot be said that the same is bad. As already noticed the employer has ample powers to fix the qualifications necessary for a post. It is also worth noticing that the mode of recruitment stipulated by the 2012 Regulations is not by promotion. The regulations stipulate 3 modes of recruitment namely - Direct Recruitment, Internal Recruitment and promotion. It is clear from the expression used that only 60% of the vacancies that are to be filled up by promotion are available for selection on the basis of seniority. Even in the case of promotion, a mode of selection is stipulated, based on seniority and merit. The other two methods are Direct Recruitment and Internal Recruitment. By the expression `Internal Recruitment' what is meant is only that the recruitment would be confined to the category of persons W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 20 stipulated therein, namely persons having graduation in any discipline with 10 years of continuous service in the K.S.R.T.C. Therefore, the object is to confine the recruitment to the employees of the 1st respondent. The said recruitment being not by promotion, it is open to the 1st respondent to prescribe an age limit for such selection. The petitioners being persons with superior qualifications would certainly be able to perform better than the ordinary graduates. The selection according to the respondents is to be made by the P.S.C. Therefore, the method of selection that is stipulated is in accordance with law.
14. The above being the position, the contention that the 1st respondent was not within its rights to do away with the qualification of M.B.A that was originally stipulated as well as the contention that it has no authority to stipulate an age limit for such recruitment, cannot be accepted.
15. The respective counsel appearing in the case have placed reliance on a number of decisions in support of the W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 21 various contentions raised. One of the contentions is that, the rules applicable to the selection have been changed in the middle of the selection process, thereby denying to the petitioners the selection that was legitimately due to them. The Full Bench decision in Mohanan v. Director of Homeopathy [2006(3) KLT 641 (F.B)] is relied upon to support the above contention. However, in the present case the selection process that was initiated as per Ext.P3 was the subject matter of challenge before this Court. As per Ext.P9, this Court had ordered the said selection to be provisional. The 1st respondent was also directed to proceed in the matter only after consulting the Public Service Commission. It was in view of the above direction that Ext.P10 regulations were framed after consultation with the Public Service Commission, in compliance with the direction of this Court. It is true that on a review of the appointments that had been made, they were regularized. Since the petitioners had not been appointed, they did not get the said benefit. The action of the 1st respondent in deciding not to proceed with the earlier selection in view of the direction of this Court contained in Ext.P9 cannot be found fault with. The fact W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 22 situation in the present case being different, the Full Bench decision referred to above has no application. In the present case, there has been no change of the recruitment rules, in the matter of the selection process.
16. It is also pointed out that, regulations made by the K.S.R.T.C are regulations that were approved by the Government. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. M.Kesavan and Others [2010 (3) KHC 420] is relied upon to support the above contention. By placing reliance on the dictum of a Division Bench of this Court in K.S.R.T.C v. Kalyanakrishnan [1986 KHC 480], the decision of the apex court in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Gopinath Gundachar Char [1968 KHC 551] and the decision in Pankajaksy and Others v. George Mathew and Others [1987 KHC 563 (D.B)], it is contended that the regulations framed under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 would have to yield to the directions issued by the State Government under Section 34 of the said Act. The direction in Ext.P2 to implement the recommendations of the High Power Committee in a time bound manner is therefore binding on the W.P(c) Nos.14339 of 2013-N, 14243 of 2013-E, 14728 of 2013-M, 14888 of 2013-I & 248 of 2014-E 23 1st respondent, it is contended. Therefore, the stipulations in Ext.P10 regulations would have to yield to the direction of the Government under Section 34 of the Act. In the present case, the direction issued by the State Government in Ext.P2 was implemented by framing Ext.P3 regulations. However, in view of the direction of this Court contained in Ext.P9 judgment, the matter had to be reconsidered. Accordingly, in compliance with the judgment of this Court, the Public Service Commission was consulted and Ext.P10 regulations were framed, afresh. The said regulations, as already noticed above, have been accepted and approved by the State Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ext.P10 has been issued in violation of the direction of the Government in Ext.P2. For the above reasons, the decisions relied upon have no application to the fact situation in the present case.
In view of the above, I find no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. These Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/